FCC Angers Cities, Towns With $2 Billion Giveaway To Wireless Carriers (arstechnica.com) 131
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission's plan for spurring 5G wireless deployment will prevent city and town governments from charging carriers about $2 billion worth of fees. The FCC proposal, to be voted on at its meeting on September 26, limits the amount that local governments may charge carriers for placing 5G equipment such as small cells on poles, traffic lights, and other government property in public rights-of-way. The proposal, which is supported by the FCC's Republican majority, would also force cities and towns to act on carrier applications within 60 or 90 days. The FCC says this will spur more deployment of small cells, which "have antennas often no larger than a small backpack." But the commission's proposal doesn't require carriers to build in areas where they wouldn't have done so anyway.
The FCC plan proposes up-front application fees of $100 for each small cell and annual fees of up to $270 per small cell. The FCC says this is a "reasonable approximation of [localities'] costs for processing applications and for managing deployments in the rights-of-way." Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers and would have to prove that the fees are a reasonable approximation of all costs and "non-discriminatory." But, according to Philadelphia, those proposed fees "are simply de minimis when measured against the costs that the City incurs to approve, support, and maintain the many small cell and distributed antenna system (DAS) installations in its public rights-of-way." Philadelphia said it "has already established a fee structure and online application process to apply for small cell deployment that has served the needs of its citizens without prohibiting or creating barriers to entry for infrastructure investment." The city has also negotiated license agreements for small cell installations with Verizon, AT&T, and other carriers. In addition to Philadelphia, the Rural County Represenatives of California (RCRC), a group representing 35 rural California counties, also objects to the FCC plan. They told the FCC that its "proposed recurring fee structure is an unreasonable overreach that will harm local policy innovation."
"That is why many local governments have worked to negotiate fair agreements with wireless providers, which may exceed that number or provide additional benefits to the community," the RCRC wrote. "The FCC's decision to prohibit municipalities' ability to require 'in-kind' conditions on installation agreements is in direct conflict with the FCC's stated intent of this Order and further constrains local governments in deploying wireless services to historically underserved areas."
The FCC plan proposes up-front application fees of $100 for each small cell and annual fees of up to $270 per small cell. The FCC says this is a "reasonable approximation of [localities'] costs for processing applications and for managing deployments in the rights-of-way." Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers and would have to prove that the fees are a reasonable approximation of all costs and "non-discriminatory." But, according to Philadelphia, those proposed fees "are simply de minimis when measured against the costs that the City incurs to approve, support, and maintain the many small cell and distributed antenna system (DAS) installations in its public rights-of-way." Philadelphia said it "has already established a fee structure and online application process to apply for small cell deployment that has served the needs of its citizens without prohibiting or creating barriers to entry for infrastructure investment." The city has also negotiated license agreements for small cell installations with Verizon, AT&T, and other carriers. In addition to Philadelphia, the Rural County Represenatives of California (RCRC), a group representing 35 rural California counties, also objects to the FCC plan. They told the FCC that its "proposed recurring fee structure is an unreasonable overreach that will harm local policy innovation."
"That is why many local governments have worked to negotiate fair agreements with wireless providers, which may exceed that number or provide additional benefits to the community," the RCRC wrote. "The FCC's decision to prohibit municipalities' ability to require 'in-kind' conditions on installation agreements is in direct conflict with the FCC's stated intent of this Order and further constrains local governments in deploying wireless services to historically underserved areas."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you understand the principles of democracy and open markets. This is the FCC saying wireless companies don't have to serve everyone, and they don't have to take the local economy into consideration when paying. So basically now local taxes will be paying for these cell tower setups, and they won't serve everyone. It'll be.. wow, my phone works great in the rich part of town, but the local blue worker area has shitty cell service... yeah, no thanks.
Quoting the summary for you (Score:2)
TFS explains:
"placing 5G equipment such as small cells on poles, traffic lights"
Parking spots are 9 to 11 feet wide and 18 to 22 long, plus you need access to the spot. So it takes about 320 square feet per parking spot.
How many square feet does an antenna bolted to an existing pole take up?
Giveaways (Score:1)
Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service, or did you want local governments to cash in?
Re: (Score:3)
Spend less than X
Re:Giveaways (Score:5, Informative)
That's not usually an option. There's this view that governments waste tons of money and in general it's just not true. Occasionally, money is wasted, but when it's wasted, it's usually on things that the voters are believed to want like bike lanes all over the place.
Most of the time things like utilities and health care are better provided by government entities as they don't need to generate profit.
Around here, the liquor used to only be available from the state, you went to a state liquor store to buy the bottle and it worked pretty well. It wasn't perfect, the stores weren't everywhere and they weren't open on Sundays, but they did a much better job of preventing minors from buying. When voters voted to privatize the liquor distribution, the prices wound up going up 20-30% as now you have to pay not just tax on the liquor, but each store wants to make a profit.
Personally, I don't drink, so it doesn't affect me, but I find it absolutely hilarious that morons voted for the initiative thinking that they would see the cost of liquor go down. Prices rarely go down when you replace a government service with a for profit private business.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't collecting the fees for these new installations now and are for the most part seem just fine. It just means no new shiny trucks for town employees to take a nap in the local park every day.
Re:Giveaways (Score:4, Insightful)
Local government is going to spend X.
Government doesn't work that way. They don't decide on the services they want to provide, and then set the tax rates accordingly. Instead, they look at the pile of money they have, and then decide what to spend it on. The list of spending options is always bigger than the money pile.
You either pay them directly, through taxes, or you pay them as passthrough
You really think they are going to see the money coming in from the telcos and say, "Hey, we can use this to reduce other taxes"?
5G deployment is in the interest of the public. It is a silly thing to tax. It is even sillier to add pointless bureaucratic delay.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if your opinion would change if one of those 5g backpack sized cells were mounted outside your home on a light post. Or even worse, it also ran LTE LAA and affected your 5 ghz network.
Actually, given the quality of cell service where my parents live, the neighborhood would throw a small parade if it was realized that 5G backpack-sized cell was going in on one of the local light posts. It's absurd to have a dead zone in the middle of a major metropolitan area.
I suspect that the neighborhood did not vote the way the then-current local government liked, back when the last round of cell network deployment went through here. I mean, when you've got a street locally notorious for people not
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if your opinion would change if one of those 5g backpack sized cells were mounted outside your home on a light post.
Not at all, since I have a working brain and an education.
Although the risk from a 4G station is infinitesimally close to zero, 5G is even less. 5G is directional, and since the frequency is higher, the absorption is higher, so they need more fine grained locations. So each station is covering a smaller area, and has lower intensity.
Anyway, even if there was a risk, why would a tax make it less risky?
Re: (Score:2)
Please put one outside my house. I want good 5G service.
Re:Giveaways (Score:4)
Government doesn't work that way. They don't decide on the services they want to provide, and then set the tax rates accordingly. Instead, they look at the pile of money they have, and then decide what to spend it on.
No. Governments have sovereign authority (granted by their electors) to decide what to spend and what to tax. Both have, and will, go up and down.
The list of spending options is always bigger than the money pile.
We agree on that.
You really think they are going to see the money coming in from the telcos and say, "Hey, we can use this to reduce other taxes"?
Well, maybe. Wouldn't that be in the interest of their taxpayers?
5G deployment is in the interest of the public. It is a silly thing to tax. It is even sillier to add pointless bureaucratic delay.
Neither the FCC nor the 5G providers should be the only deciders here. There are competing interests that local governments want to protect. Timely processing of applications is reasonable, but arbitrary caps on fees are not.
And as for 5G being a "silly" thing to tax -- it's not silly to tax it so as to balance public and corporate interests. It won't be the first time that has been done.
Re:Giveaways (Score:4, Informative)
None of that matters, because it's local property and the Constitution doesn't give the FCC or any other Federal agency the right to set limits like this. Essentially, it's taking property without compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think they are going to see the money coming in from the telcos and say, "Hey, we can use this to reduce other taxes"?
Some do. Some don't. Look at Kansas and Sam Brownback for an example. Sure it leads to massive deficits but to your point. Yes some do reduce taxes.
Re:Giveaways (Score:5, Insightful)
Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service
Well, I guess you can at least rest assured that there won't be any "giveaway" from the companies to their customers.
Re:Giveaways (Score:5, Informative)
The contrast between Slashdot and Ars Technica is interesting. Most slashdotters appear in favor of "capping" how much local governments can tax these 5G towers.
Ars posters have the opposite opinion, saying the local governments should be able to Tax whatever amount they wish.
I thought the two websites would be more identical in view, given they share similar backgrounds (engineers, technicians, programmers).
Re: (Score:2)
/. is full of shills.
The only thing limiting the shills is that /.'s readership is declining, so the value in paying shills to post here is also declining.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no value to in paying shills to post here. There's literally no value at all. Trolling and flamebaiting has always been the goal of what alarmists call "shills". Nobody in govt or industry cares what gets said on /. in regard to their business. Not a single person. Technical questions and answers are often brought up, which interests some nerds. Delusional introverts, people suffering from persecution complexes born from the impotent position of watching their old lifestyle being etched away, are a
Re: (Score:2)
The remarkable acceleration in new uid numbers while the number of replies to articles suggests otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are rather thin-skinned.
I dared to contradict you and you make me one of your foes. Well, all I can say is good-riddance. It's no loss to me that I won't see your few posts.
Re: (Score:1)
Similar? Hardly. Ars is the Gawker of the tech world.
People like to complain about Slashdot but it still has the best commenting/moderation system of any website ever. It seems most sites use either none or "democratic" voting system (ie. "mob rule") which sucks balls. Most people are simply too stupid to be trusted with the power to moderate others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a liberal socialist, but this is about the only thing the FCC has done lately that I like. Tax corporate profits more -- don't let local governments add stupid inefficiencies as a backdoor tax. Think about how much vastly more efficient it is to have reason-based fees for every telecommunications company everywhere in the country, compared to leaving the corporations to hire a bunch of lobbyists and contribute campaign donations to thousands of mayors and boards of supervisors so they can negotiate a se
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a liberal socialist, but this is about the only thing the FCC has done lately that I like.
That's because price controls (don't let people dress this up as anything but what it is) are an idea that has had a lot of traction in the traditional socialist movements.
What blows my mind is that the Trumpians are too fucking stupid that this idea isn't the kind of red they think it is, and they're absolutely willing and happy reconfigure their brain to accommodate.
Think about how much vastly more efficient it is to have reason-based fees for every telecommunications company everywhere in the country
This is always the reasoning behind price controls. It doesn't fucking work, because different areas have different fair-market values.
Re: (Score:2)
"willing and happy reconfigure their brain" That's a bit rich. Rather they are merely pass-thru conduits for the mothership, no reconfiguration necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Slashdot promoted at all? I've never seen it advertised, or any mention of it in other places for many years now. This means that the crowd who comes here really is the narrow grou
Re:Giveaways (Score:5, Informative)
I want local governments to act in the best interests of their citizens, and require ISPs to fully cover the regulated areas and not just cherry-pick only the most profitable.
I want them to require that, as a condition of being able to provide 5G mostly in high-density environments, telcos provide 100% broadband coverage for every household and business in the regulated area -- State or County.
By 100% broadband I mean 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up speeds, which is the FCC definition of broadband. I'd add to that no usage cap or throttling based on anything other than real-time, actual congestion and capacity checks (95th percentile) to ensure they don't plant a single, overloaded cell out in an area and claim constant congestion. This can be fixed or wireless (4G LTE, WiMax, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many things are without Constitutional authority. Regulation of drugs to keep Ma and Pa Kettle from hawking "Kettle's Back Pain and Paint Remover". Also not authorized is regulation of the airlines so their "accountants" don't set repair policies on the basis of an acceptable number of crashes. Pollution of the air and water regulated as well.
These and more are under threat from an Administration that feels if it is good for industry, the people be damned because us rich folks can live outside of polluted p
Re: (Score:2)
I would like that, but I also do not care what level of the government does it--local, state, federal, alien overlords deciding for some reason to finally reveal they're not merely the product of crazed conspiracy theorists, I don't care as long as it's done. Local governments are perfectly capable of screwing over their citizens, too; it's just a lot easier to do housecleaning when you don't have to travel very far to remind them that they won't always get away with it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because it's going to be local taxpayers who makeup for the costs.... It's basically the federal government forcing local cities to pay for 5G rollout. What happened to small government and local rights? oh, doesn't matter when it's the new republican party's rich friends... wtf happened to us, the republican party is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service, or did you want local governments to cash in?"
Apparently everyone wants everything. If we want good 5G coverage, and quickly, limiting the taxes and paperwork and requiring quick approvals will cut the red tape.
BUT, I have to agree that along with those carrots needs to be a few sticks- like to make sure there is good coverage and they don't go skipping neighborhoods they don't want...
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, I have to agree that along with those carrots needs to be a few sticks- like to make sure there is good coverage and they don't go skipping neighborhoods they don't want...
Stick that into the terms for using the set fee/limited paperwork/quick approval process--so it's functionally part of the price, and have it so you're asking for a geographic area. That'd also keep local governments from causing neighborhoods to get skipped for their own reasons.
Re:Giveaways (Score:4)
Did you want good 5G service, ...
What makes you think we'll actually get that?
Re: (Score:2)
The same way we got good 3G service and good 4G service. Customers will flock to a carrier with good coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
With our new price controls, we will eliminate all overcharging in that pesky capitalist market.
This is why rural areas have bad coverage (Score:2)
They want to extort money from companies to provide services to their customers and then wonder why they refuse to pay
Re: (Score:1)
Comunities want to be able to charge companies what is needed to cover costs. I love how the Reds are against federal overreach until there campaign contributors pay for that overreach. The reason rural areas can't have good broadband is because Comcast and friends pay for regulations to prohibit local government from supplying it. Apparently that's not enough, how they want to force local communities to sell access at whatever price they see fit.
ORLY? (Score:2)
"proposed recurring fee structure is an unreasonable overreach that will harm local policy innovation."
You mean limit the extortion a local municipality can demand? That kind of "innovation"?
Re: ORLY? (Score:5, Funny)
Wonâ(TM)t someone please think of the poor telecom companies?
Pai sure does.
Re: (Score:1)
That's called democracy and localized government vs big government and prescribed federal policies... isn't that what our Republican party once stood for?
Re: (Score:2)
The LAND belongs to the locals (Score:4, Informative)
They can float their cell towers if they wish; but the LAND belongs to us and the wires going over OUR LAND is ours and they have to do anything we want to demand for use of it... or simply not use it... given how much profits there are to be had, it is unlikely that fees will not deter them except in extreme cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Parent: poor reading comprehension (Score:2)
I wrote OUR land multiple times; it's our decision and no matter how the FCC tries to extend it's communications management outside it's domain, ultimately it's boundaries will fall short of the local domain over public land management rights. Local governments can invent an infinite number of ways to leverage their power.
"Property rights" aka LAW is completely a government thing. It's what governments exist for; it is part of being civilized and we all pay a price to be civilized; some resent it more than
Re: (Score:2)
But that isn't what this is, and you know that.
This is a handout from the FCC to the industry it regulates at the behest of the people who elect their local leaders to make decisions for their local municipalities.
Gymnastics are a lot funner when they're physical. Give the mental ones a rest.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is it a handout? Municipalities will make $270 per cell per year. Put that on a telephone pole (rather, allow a 5G provider to pay for their own people to put it on a pole and maintain their equipment) and make $270 per year. Given that a telephone pole runs about $3000 [dailyherald.com], that means the city is paid to replace each pole so used every 11 years if they like. Now, since poles tend to last a LOT longer than that, it means those people putting the 5G cells on the poles (at their own expense, mind you)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So how is it a handout?
Quite simple. It federally enforces local municipalities to sell use of public land for under fair-market value for that locale.
Who do you *think* that benefits? The consumer? You think your service bill is going to go down?
Municipalities will make $270 per cell per year.
That's probably wonderful for some places. Certainly you recognize that there is a difference in fair market values in locations with median incomes of 32k/year/family vs. places with median incomes of 75k/year/family. You'd mandate the richest economies sell their public assets- with a
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you *think* that benefits? The consumer? You think your service bill is going to go down?
I think you will find that the US mobile users experienced a 400-fold price-per-Internet-bps decline over the last 12 years.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think that has to do with pole costs?
As a senior network engineer at an ISP, I can tell you our data costs have dropped through the floor too. That's simply due to the fact that the internet continues to become more connected. Companies that previously had monopolies on big-player transit no longer do. Where we once paid $10/mbps @ 95th percentile, we now pay $.02.
As links have become faster, fiber multiplexing has become cheaper, one can push
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now Trump-tards are in favor of the Federal Government telling local municipalities how much their right-of-way is worth?
Does your brain ever just fucking hurt from your ideological cross-dressing?
Personally (Score:2)
When I get a new job I leave the old one behind.
Re: (Score:2)
He's making sure he'll get fat bonuses when he goes back to his old job, Pai's gonna get a lot of shares.
Re: Personally (Score:2)
It seems to me that he never left; he's doing two jobs at once.
Hmm, torn on this (Score:2)
On the one hand I dislike overreaching government control.
But the FCC is right here, unless rules are imposed some communities may impose unreasonable fees for putting up new gear. And I dislike overbearing taxes which this rule corrects for - since it's mostly government-on-government action, I'min favor for it as it benefits the consumer, not government.
In the end I agree it is a massive public interest to have 5G roll out as quickly as possible - I especially hate the framing of it being a "gift" to the
Re: (Score:2)
These 35 rural California counties are all Republican country. When you're pissing off your voting base don't expect to get away unscathed.
There's also a huge swath between "unreasonable" fees and giving away access for free. If the 5G companies want to roll out quickly by piggy backing on city and country poles then they should pay for this, otherwise they can put up their own poles.
Re: (Score:3)
These 35 rural California counties are all Republican country. When you're pissing off your voting base don't expect to get away unscathed.
Oh No Republicans might have 1% of power in California instead of 2! Disaster.
There's also a huge swath between "unreasonable" fees and giving away access for free.
Yes there is and you may want to read again because they ARE allowed to charge money, just up to a cap. It does not mean they have to "give anything away for free". Why should local governments be allowed t
Re: (Score:3)
You think they have no influence? How the American system works is that we vote for more than the president. A large number of those staunchly Trump congress members are from those 35 counties, including Devin Nunes. And as well, it's a great area to go for Republican fundraising.
Also, democracy should mean that the local voters get more say about local issues than some distant uncaring government that's being bribed by big telecom industries.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live, they do put up their own poles, and will also buy/rent (depending on arrangements) the right to place their equipment on already-existing sites. It's actually helping cover preserving a rather important old industrial chimney--it's not in use anymore, but it's a major nest site for one of the local bird species and it'd be an environmental problem if the money for maintaining it couldn't be found. (It's also rather common for watertowers here to get part of their upkeep costs covered this wa
Re: (Score:2)
If the 5G companies want to roll out quickly by piggy backing on city and country poles then they should pay for this, otherwise they can put up their own poles.
Maybe they can do a Kickstarter for this, and a survey beforehand to find out how much people want it. That would be Polls for 'Poles for Proles'.
Re: (Score:2)
within reasonable limits
Reasonable limit as decided by the FCC.
Look at those prices. I couldn't rent a 2x2 spot on the roof of a building here for that *per month*.
It's as if local economies don't exist. Or Federalism. The mental gymnastics of the Republicans trying to cope with the cognitive dissonance of their elected government being as bad as their scariest liberal boogyman government is fascinating to watch.
They *can* charge more if reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
I couldn't rent a 2x2 spot on the roof of a building here
For $250 you could probably buy a whole house in some parts of the country.
But for the areas where $250 truly is too cheap for a small area, they can charge more - from the summary:
Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers and would have to prove that the fees are a reasonable approximation of all costs and "non-discriminatory."
If a fee is a reasonable approximation of costs then they can charge extra for that location. It just prevents locales from jacking up prices 10x what they are worth if you were renting the space for anything else.
How is that unreasonable? It seems to be you contorting your own understanding of what is actually occurring, not unusually for those driven purely by hate.
Re: (Score:3)
How fucking stupid are you?
Re: (Score:3)
For $250 you could probably buy a whole house in some parts of the country.
I totally understand that. Which is just *another* argument for sub-federal governments exercising *their right* to govern *their* public land right-of-way.
But for the areas where $250 truly is too cheap for a small area, they can charge more - from the summary:
Yes... from the summary-
Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers
Allow me to paraphrase: "Charge us fair-market value for your locality, and be prepared to defend it in court. By the way, our legal budget is more than yours. By a fucking lot."
If a fee is a reasonable approximation of costs then they can charge extra for that location. It just prevents locales from jacking up prices 10x what they are worth if you were renting the space for anything else.
As determined by *who*?
If a carrier pays 10x what you consider it to be worth, then you are in fact the one who is mistaken by virtue of the carrier payi
Legal budget is not a lot more, per city... (Score:2)
be prepared to defend it in court. By the way, our legal budget is more than yours. By a fucking lot.
That is not true if you are suing 4000 cities across the U.S. The fact there are so many separate areas means lawsuits would only be fore the most egregious overcharging. My point remains - places CAN charge more for more valuable locations.
You didn't seem to understand anything at all well so I'll just let the rest of your post stand as a monument to mistaken understanding. You may have the last word, I c
Re: (Score:2)
Local municipalities should being negotiating the prices for their property. Not the federal government.
What will 5g allow me to do that 4g won't? As it is, I don't have an unlimited data plan for my cell as it just isn't worth it. I suppose if 5g goes in and 4g unlimited becomes cheaper I will win, but I kind of don't see that happening.
I don't need a faster link, I need a cheaper link at current speeds. That's more then enough for my household needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless carriers won't be taking on landline broadband access. These will be separate networks from internet networks, and most likely if it's anything like 3G or 4G, you won't use 5G unless you're a phone, and you're going to be paying so much monthly fee that no one will want it for internet anyway.
Re: Publicans (Score:1)
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have cared about states rights for decades. You are living in fantasy land if you think there is any difference between these two corporate owed political parties.
Illegal property grab (Score:3)
The FCC has no right to mass appropriate property for the telecom companies. They seem to be trying it without even going through an eminent domain process. Since when did all local government owned property become the federal government's? Perhaps the feds would like to pay for all of its maintenance too.
A lot of the communities around me have sparse 3G/4G coverage because tall structures aren't allowed. These things are a community's right to determine. If the local citizens feel that the appearance of their community is more important than cellular access, so be it.
The degree to which the feds are pushing 5G seems off. It must have a massive backdoor or something.
Perhaps they are aiming to claim they have massively increased broadband availability for rural locations or something. If so, they need to change the definitions. The caps on cellular data price it well out of reach cost-wise for average Americans and it often doesn't allow tethering to support a home internet. I'm doing good to afford the $50/month for my cable internet. Thankfully, having that supply the WiFi at home keeps the cellular data used by our phones under 2GB per month so basic plans are good.
A definition like "broadband is defined as a 24/7 internet connection that delivers at least 25MB with no data caps no more than $50 per month and can provide for the full IoT environment in the home (connections that ban tethering wouldn't count)" would be good for judging whether an individual has coverage that allows them to have a basic home internet experience at a cost that most could handle.
Re: (Score:2)
These things are a community's right to determine.
The Federal Government has the power to regulate things related to interstate commerce, so no. Down with NIBYism destroying our infrastructure!
Looks like rural areas gets the shaft again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC ruling makes it so the coastal elites can't actually charge the telecoms fair market value for use of their poles, which they will pay whatever the fuck we want to charge them, since we're offering them a customer base measured with 8 figures.
And it's fucking over the rural people, because it doesn't force the wireless carriers, as a concession for that awesome handout they get at the expense of the coasties, to provide service to the rural people.
This literally fuc
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use 5g (Score:1)
Reading all kinds of stuff about how 5g is bad for life. Tends to kill things. Trees, plants, etc. Probably not safe for Humans.